Raj Kumar vs State
2008 Latest Caselaw 2314 Del

                "REPORTABLE"
*     HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            BAIL APPL. NO. 1958/2008

                                  Date of decision : 19.12.2008

#     RAJ KUMAR                             ...... Petitioner
!                   Through : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Adv.
                              Mr. Dhruv Kumra, Adv.

                               Versus

$     STATE                             ......Respondent
^                   Through : Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, APP
                              SI Sudhir Kumar

%
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH

     (1) Whether reporters of local paper may be
         allowed to see the judgment?

     (2) To be referred to the reporter or not?              Yes

     (3) Whether the judgment should be reported
         in the Digest ?                                     Yes

                           JUDGMENT

ARUNA SURESH, J.

1. Petitioner had earlier filed an application seeking

his release on bail being bail application No.

973/2008. The said application was dismissed

by this Court along with other connected

applications of Ashok Khatri being bail application

No. 1060/2008 whereas vide said common order

bail application No. 981/2008 filed by Anar Singh

was allowed.

2. In brief the allegations of the prosecution against

the petitioner are that on 3.9.2005 at about 9.30

P.M. he along with co-accused Ashok Khatri, Anil,

Anar Singh, Anand @ Dhammal, Shailender and

Dharampal went to the house of Ajay Rana and

Ajay Rana was called out of his house by Ashok

Khatri. A quarrel ensued between the parties

about Ajay Rana having asked Ashok Khatri to

remove malba (debris) from the street. Petitioner

Raj Kumar along with co-accused Anil is alleged to

have attacked Ajay Rana with their respective

swords which they were carrying with them.

Besides Ashok Khatri had also stabbed deceased

Ajay Rana. Ajay Rana succumbed to his injuries

and died.

3. Petitioner Raj Kumar allegedly also sustained

injuries in the said incident and went to Hindu Rao

Hospital where he was medically examined and his

MLC was prepared. However, petitioner

absconded from the hospital with the result the

Doctor could not give any opinion on the MLC of

the petitioner regarding nature of injuries which

were found on his person. Petitioner was arrested

on the same day. The bail application of the

petitioner was dismissed with following

observations:

"As regards applicant/accused Raj Kumar, the weapon of offence allegedly used by him i.e. sword could not be recovered during the investigation of the case. But the role assigned to him is serious in nature hence he is not entitled to the relief as prayed for by him for release on bail at this stage."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that at the time of dismissing the said application

the Court did not take into consideration that

accused Asha was granted bail though her role was

similar to the role of the petitioner in the incident

and petitioner, according to him, is entitled to

parity. He also submitted that accused Anand @

Dhammal was also released on bail on 17.9.2008

though a farsa was allegedly recovered at his

instance.

5. Learned counsel also sought bail on compassionate

grounds as daughter of the petitioner aged about

23 years was of marriageable age and petitioner

was required to search a suitable match for his

daughter and also there was no other person to

look after the family of the petitioner which

consists of his marriageable daughter and two

minor sons who are studying and petitioner is the

only bread earner of his family. It is prayed that in

case the petitioner is not released on regular bail,

he be granted interim bail for about two months so

that he could arrange match for his daughter.

6. Admittedly, there are no changed circumstances

after the dismissal of the earlier application of the

petitioner on 31.7.2008. Petitioner cannot claim

parity with co-accused Asha who was not initially

named in the FIR but was named subsequently by

the brother-in-law of the complainant when he

wrote a letter to the concerned authorities for

transfer of the investigation. It was under those

circumstances and also considering that she was a

woman that she was granted bail. As regards

accused Anand @ Dhammal, he was released on

bail by this Court with certain observations of the

Forensic Sciences Laboratory in reference to the

farsa allegedly recovered at the instance of

accused Anand. Therefore, petitioner cannot claim

any parity with accused Anand @ Dhammal.

Hence, I find no merits in this bail application and

the same is dismissed.

7. Considering the nature of allegations against the

petitioner and also keeping in mind the fact that

prosecution evidence is being recorded, there is

every likelihood of petitioner influencing the

prosecution witnesses even if released on interim

bail at this stage. Hence, the request of the

learned counsel for the petitioner for release of the

petitioner on interim bail for a period of two

months is also declined.

(ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE December 19, 2008 jk